Dennis fact checks Howard Dean on Jeremy Glick vs O'Reilly lie

[beastshawnee]

stockholm syndrom? What an idiotic analysis. this idiot is just repeating the crap they use to cover up 9/11. every time someone questions the lies,he's crazy. check out my favorites for more info. 9/11 was computer graphics shown as live tv. the proof is in. INVESTIGATE. ACT.

[PissedFechtmeister]

Glick was right. 9/11 was not an attack by either Afghanistan or Iraq. Bin Laden was a Saudi as were all or most of the people involved. Al Qaeda was created in Pakistan. The Taliban was created by the Afghan rebels that we supported during the Soviet invasion. 9/11 was blowback from our foreign policies for the past 60 years. It's not unpatriotic to recognize this. Indeed, it would be unpatriotic to ignore it.

[SHARKSMAN12]

He's not confused, he cites facts. The CIA did fund the Afghanistan War Lords during the USSR's invasion. And O'Reilley does imply that Glick is unpatriotic.  When you say that someone is accusing the US government of terrorism, you are implying that they are not with the United States, which means that they are unpatriotic. Now, I'm sure Dennis is smart enough to know what inferring is, so I'll just assume that he just doesn't want to believe what is blatantly in front of him.

[BanThisChannel]

leftist activist? you disgusting, pathetic, fascist worm. i hope you burn in hell for your sins against humanity.

[mega22266deth]

but everything the kid said was right, its all been proven that america trained them and gave them weapons, and bill o riley did say he was un patriotic.. this kunt on this video is a fucken peice of a shit and he needs a bullet as much as bill o riley and george bush and everyone else that helped in the false flag 911 terror incident

[thesicilianguitarist]

I hate Fox News.

I can't believe people even watch that shit.

[MrLetsfindout]

this is amazing the kid owned o reillly... o reilly was disgusting in this interview and pragers explanation is beyond warped

[wcolonna]

Your comment about that interview is not only incorrect but downright slander. You are an idiot!

[theMediaFork]

@wcolonna who are you talking to and what are you talking about? this comment makes no sense.

[wcolonna]

@theMediaFork "repeated insults and attacks on the host" Are you saying that glick attacked oreilly? You are out of your mind! Typical of the right ! Did you even bother watching the video? What a freaking tool!! Why are there people who put any stock into your obvious right wing bullshit? Get a clue you fing loser!

[swho23]

Interesting that you don't actually play the Billo the clip!!! Coward

So what if he didn't use the exact words "unpatriotic"  he definitely implied it. and he sure as hell wasn't calling him a good US citizen either. Coward

[theMediaFork]

@swho23 Interesting that you don't actually support your silly claim with any evidence. Coward? or just a Hypocrite.

fail.

[johnsw224]

this dennis whoever is the liar. to make it worse he expects you to just take his words for it. if dean made up everything, why didnt he play an except from the o'reilly interview from which the claim was made?

[theMediaFork]

@johnsw224 the interview is 6 minutes long. don't be stupid.

[pjamesbda]

What makes you the F-ing authority you fat prick. Yours is as much of an opinion as any other. The "kid" has a very clear head, and understands better the underpinnings of power than you or Billo. So F you. Theres a lot of sickness alright, and Dean was right about you gluttonous conservatives. What a crank.

[theMediaFork]

@pjamesbda big on hate, small on facts.

what makes him the authority? uh, what makes YOU the authority? this hack crank comment is pathetic.

[pjamesbda]

@theMediaFork - typical you would comment 3 months later - right after the Sherrod fiasco perpetrated by your ally Andrew Breitbart. The 'Left' is fed up with trumped up crap like this. Call it hate...I could give a shit, your gutter politics creates it. I'm learning to curb mine, because I recognize it as energy given the ignorant twits who dress up as pimps to entrap acorn, and constantly hurrang people trying to make a difference for the better. Left and Right are about to see thru your BS.

[SexedUpAtheist]

Glick's repeated insults and attacks on the host, Bill O'Reilly?

I watched that, and the only thing I recall was O'Reilly essentially telling the kid that he was equating our country with terrorism (false: he suggested the President's involvement, and the President is not the country), and that Jeremy has a warped view of reality (false: he simply disagrees with what he sees as the misuse of the tragedy of 9/11 to further his [O'Reilly's] own political agena), and (cont.)

[SexedUpAtheist]

(cont.) his irrational insistence that the people of Afgahnistan killed his father, and denied Bush's (indirect) involvement in the training of the people that were truly responsible.

Prager is just as much a political party loyalist as you are [theMediaFork], and so of course you're going to selectively ignore certain facts in regards to this ordeal that do not favor your political party, or anyone involved with it.

You are all the cancer eating away at our country.

[rekinescu]

anti war views are awful?you losers...talking about warped views?

[theMediaFork]

@rekinescu except... no one said that...

try not to make things up. thanks. 

[rekinescu]

@theMediaFork .In deed no one said it explicitly,but it's understood...Only if you use your head for something else than keep the rain out of your neck.You defend o'reilly bro:)) How come you even have the nerve to open your mouth?

[theMediaFork]

Starting to respond to a vicious personal attack and then stopping yourself out of respect to your attackers dead father is not "an attack", so thanks for admitting that you don't know what one is.

Liar.

Why do you even bother responding to me I was leaving you alone. It never goes good for you. Literally never. You get your ass handed to you and you just ignore it. 16 unresponded to facts and you just ignore them so you can pretend you were still right. the FAILathon never ends with you.

[jessicalynnireland]

@theMediaFork You honestly believe that Bill O'Reilly did or does anything out of respect for Jeremy Glick's father? Glick was not attacking O'Reilly personally. He's right, O'Reilly does evoke the sympathy of 9/11 victims' families to further his own political ideology, this was only further evidence of that. And you actually fall for this bullshit?

[jessicalynnireland]

@theMediaFork If Bill O'Reilly actually had sympathy for those families he wouldn't of brought one of them on his show, and incessantly bring up his father, tell him his father would be ashamed of him?! What kind of lowlife says that to a kid who lost his dad?! Bill O'Reilly, that's who.

[Eaglesfaninca]

Bill O'reilly claimed that Glick had a "warped view of this world and a warped view of this country". Yeah that is attacking someones patriotism, sorry you don't like that.

Maybe you should heed your own advice.

BTW block me I don't give a fuck. I owned you every time we discussed anything. It's not like I respect you anyway, if I could see you I would spit in your face. You worship these media idiots, and plagarize them, I called you on it remember?

[yossarianf]

I wonder if you are illiterate. I hear no "baseless smears" . I asked you twice to give quotes to back up your points. You havent, and the reason? Mr Glick didnt insult the host: the host insulted him and made assumptions about the opinions of his dead father and his mother too, come to that. Why Mr Glick didnt kick his teeth down his ignorant throat is down to one thing only: Mr Glick is a pacifist: which is what O´Reilly can´t get his minute head around.

[theMediaFork]

I would wonder if you are deaf, but clearly you're just a brainwashed narrowminded partisan too blinded by hate to listen clearly or think clearly.

You were given ample chances to educate yourself on your willful blindness and chose to use the lazymans "educate me or its not true" argument. pathetic.

Glick said O'Reilly uses the murders of 9/11 to justify "domestic plunder" (huh?) and "imperialistic aggression worldwide" (which the US has never even done, let alone been supported by O'R).

[theMediaFork]

It is not traditionally considered an insult in Western Civilization to presume decorum and good sense of the deceased.

O'Reilly showed no signs of being unable to understand pacifism. Disagreement is not synonymous with ignorance. Try to wrap your minute head around that and get a clue.

[yossarianf]

I am saying that I LITERALLY heard no criticisms of the host. Can you please provide quotes.

I am not trolling (whatever that is) nor am I mocking.

[theMediaFork]

Glick: "You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide."

How you were able to miss that is amazing. the interview is not that long and its at that point that O'R got contentious, and rightly so considering the ugliness of such a baseless charge. using Orwellian sympathy of murdered citizens to justify "domestic plunder" (huh?), "imperialistic aggression worldwide" (uh, has never happened and is just a conspiracy theory) = indefensible.

[yossarianf]

This is not a baseless smear of the host. Glick was not implying that O´Reilly was involved in domestic plunder or imperialistic aggression worldwide. Glick was expressing his beliefs - in the land of the free, this should be not only accepted, but encouraged. And O´Reilly told him to shut up and then turned off his mircophone as a result of Glicks simple disagreement with O´Reilly´s extremist right wing views.

This is indefensible.

[theMediaFork]

So what is the basis for the claim and what proof do you have that it is accurate? Back up your claim that the vicious comments by Glick were not baseless and not smears and instead of flatly stating so.

The interview got contentious after Glick attacked the host with his "expression of beliefs", which were disgusting and offensive.

You filter out attacks you agree with and then add words that were never said ("extremest rightwing views"? lie).

This is indefensible.

[yossarianf]

It is you who claim that the statements by Glick are baseless. You say they are smears against the host - at no time does Glick say that O´Reilly was involved in "domestic plunder" or in "imperialist aggression worldwide".

You change your stance. You agee the interview got "contentious" - is this a euphamism for stopped? after Glick expressed his beliefs - he did not attack the host IN ANY WAY. O´Reilly may have felt atacked because he seems to believe that he represents America - he doesnt.

[yossarianf]

Again, I am not hearing any smears - baseless or not - against the host.

I hear the host informing the son of a dead man what the dead man would or would not have thought had he not been dead - which is nothing short of bizarre, as I am fairly sure O´Reilly never met the man. I also hear O´Reilly tell Glick that he doesnt want to debate world politics - but it was world piolitics which led Glick to his signing of the document in the first place.

[theMediaFork]

Don't lie and say "again" when this is the first time you've said such a thing. first you asked "which" of the smears and now you're changing it to "hearing any". make up your mind.

If you choose to cover your ears during the vicious accusations Glick made and focus only on other aspects of the interview (that have nothing to do with THIS audio clip), then I can't help you. Neither of your 2 complaints have anything to do with a question of patriotism. nice how you dropped that allegation.

[yossarianf]

O´Reilly does IMPLY unpatriotic feelings and beliefs in Mr Click. Because Mr Glick does not support launching an ill-fated war, Mr O´Reilly launches into an aggressive attack - raising his voice, talking over the bereaved young man, pointing at him and demanding that he "shut up". He also postulates about the thoughts and beliefs of Mr Glick´s father and mother, which is absolutely beneath contempt. It seems to me that most politicos habitually distort the truth and the statements of others.

[theMediaFork]

Now you're lying about the exchange too...

The reason you don't cite the part of the interview to support your claim is that no such point exists. rather, you have inserted your own bias to hear what you wanted to hear. no implication of being unpatriotic existed in the interview and it is an outrageous lie for you to claim the raised voice and command to shut up was in response to policy disagreement when the truth is that it was in retaliation to a series of ugly and vicious personal attacks.

[yossarianf]

Which "ugly and vicious personal attacks" are you referring to?

[theMediaFork]

all of them of course. I don't think it was a particular statement that was solely responsible for the heated response. rather the build-up of Glicks controversial (and historically inaccurate) anti (different from "un") American statements coming to a head in the baseless smears against the host was responsible for the shut-down.

[yossarianf]

"baseless smears against the host"

I have watched the short interview several times, and I still can´t pick out any smears against the host. Could you give me some quotes, please?

[theMediaFork]

Are you claiming Glicks baseless attacks weren't smears because they were accurate? or are you actually saying that you watched the interview several times and literally heard no criticisms of the host?

If you're playing dumb just to troll us or to mock something... eh. we dont get it.

[yossarianf]

I do not claim that the words "extremist right-wing views" was said in the interview. I am stating a generally accepted truth: O´Reilly hold extemist right-wing views. I had no problem with him holding these views. O´Reilly, as an ´interviewer´, should allow his guests the same luxury: to hold and state views different to his. O´Reilly conducts interviews like a totalitarian fascist dictator: agree or die, turn or burn.

It is pathetic - as are your argumnts.

[theMediaFork]

what arguments are you referring to? odd. since I haven't made any.

At least you admit your fraud: you don't like O'Reilly's views (despite being unable to articulate why other than falsely claiming that such a label is "generally accepted") so you blindly use an interview where he yelled at a guest in response to said guests personal attacks and smears and take, out of context, the mere fact that yelling took place to support a larger meme that O'Reilly is a "totalitarian fascist dictator".

[yossarianf]

You are good. You should get a job in a hall of mirrors. Or at Fox News.

We have established that there were no personal attacks or smears against O´Reilly in the interview, so get off that horse.

It is not the shouting that prompts comparisons with totalitarian dictators (doesnt have to be fascist, actually, just dictatorial, so I withdraw that word): it is the demanding that his guest shut up and then silencing him when he doesn´t comply.

[theMediaFork]

You, unfortunately, are not good & should not seek a job anywhere that requires observation of events or honest description of them. Your "nuhuh" response to Glicks personal attack on O'Reilly is not an establishment that your unsupported denial of reality is valid. so get off that horse.

It is no revelation to anyone who has seen O'R's show that he has rules of conduct in his "no spin zone". no one asked if u liked them or not. you're changing the subject from your lie about Glicks conduct.

[yossarianf]

And you, my brother, have continually failed to point out to me, in my blindness, these personal smeras and insults of which you speak. Regurgitation of the same baseless argument as proof of your argument is unhelpful, unedifying and pointless.